2026-27 Montreal Canadiens discussion thread

[The Chicoutimi Cucumber]

4 hours ago, DON said:

I guess i still like the moves to try and turn Romanov & pick into a big centre, sort of like using the two 1st picks for Dobson.

Kids taken with those picks;

Nazar 41pts 66gms playing centre with Hawks last year.

Eklund 24pts 43gms SHL, RW, 10pts 9 AHL games.

Aitcheson 70pts 56 OHL games, physical LH-d, 27pts 19playoff games

 

The Dach trade was good on paper. We should remember how excited everyone was about his obvious potential in 2022-23 and for the first two games (!) before he went down for the count the following year. Who knows, maybe if Dach hadn't suffered a parade of catastrophic injuries, he would indeed have become the big, strong, 60-70 point puck-possession C that we need behind Suzuki.

 

Trades are ultimately judged on how they turn out, though, and this one just hasn't worked out.

[dlbalr]

1 hour ago, The Chicoutimi Cucumber said:

The Dach trade was good on paper. We should remember how excited everyone was about his obvious potential in 2022-23 and for the first two games (!) before he went down for the count the following year. 

 

I was curious so I looked back at the thread on here from the trade.  It certainly wasn't a lot of excitement.  At best, it was about a 50/50 split of people liking it versus not liking it..  Quite a few were concerned about the injury history and Chicago's willingness to move him so quickly.

 

 

Yes, he had a good few months (between injuries) to start 2023 but even then, I think the enthusiasm for him has always been somewhat guarded.  I say that as a good thing as I know a lot of fans in other places were excited but on here, we've been a little more realistic about not expecting an unsustainable jump.

[GHT120]

Debated putting this is "Non-Rocket Habs Prospects" but since he isn't Habs property ...
 

 

[hab29RETIRED]

On 8/17/2026 at 11:04 AM, dlbalr said:

 

I was curious so I looked back at the thread on here from the trade.  It certainly wasn't a lot of excitement.  At best, it was about a 50/50 split of people liking it versus not liking it..  Quite a few were concerned about the injury history and Chicago's willingness to move him so quickly.

 

 

Yes, he had a good few months (between injuries) to start 2023 but even then, I think the enthusiasm for him has always been somewhat guarded.  I say that as a good thing as I know a lot of fans in other places were excited but on here, we've been a little more realistic about not expecting an unsustainable jump.

 

hab29RETIRED

Posted July 9, 2022

  On 7/9/2022 at 12:55 AM,  tomh009 said:

The 13th pick would have been a risk, too -- maybe only 70% chance of becoming an NHL regular.

I would rather have picked a Nazar, Kemell, Pickering, or even a more risky pick like Miroshnichenko. Dach has not shown YET that he is a legit top 6 guy. The hawks themselves traded a 21 year old Dach and picked Nazar other thr ouck they received. That doesn’t inspire a lot of confidence. The interview I saw with him inspired even less confidence. Maybe he is just a laid back guy, but first impression want great.  
 

If Dach only becomes an NHL regular like Armia, we lost the deal. At 13, I want a difference maker, I’d rather risk on the guy drafted kid not making it than get another Armia.

 

hopefully it works out, and he becomes worthy of being drafted 3rd overall, but right now he looks to be even behind the development path of the other three #3 overall picks we’ve had playing for us.

 

•  

 

[GHT120]

 

 

[GHT120]

 

They don't specify who the bobblehead is on bobblehead nights ... there MUST be huge trades brewing that will shake up "who" will be given away ... 😉

[dlbalr]

5 hours ago, hab29RETIRED said:

I would rather have picked a Nazar, Kemell, Pickering, or even a more risky pick like Miroshnichenko. 

 

The Nazar pick is holding up well but those other three, not so much.

[Peter Puck]

 

17 hours ago, dlbalr said:

 

The Nazar pick is holding up well but those other three, not so much.

So basically all the guys we might have taken except Nazar look like they will be worse than Dach.  And Nazar is not guaranteed to be better.   i don't understand why everyone thinks this was such a bad trade.  We might have picked Nazar and he might turn out to be better than Dach.  We also very easily might have picked a bust.

 

 

[The Chicoutimi Cucumber]

8 minutes ago, Peter Puck said:

 

So basically all the guys we might have taken except Nazar look like they will be worse than Dach.  And Nazar is not guaranteed to be better.   i don't understand why everyone thinks this was such a bad trade.  We might have picked Nazar and he might turn out to be better than Dach.  We also very easily might have picked a bust.

 

 

 

I think you make the assessment based on the assumption that the Habs would have picked the right guy. It is factually correct to say that the Habs could have had Nazar instead of Dach. They chose Dach. Nazar is better than Dach. Ergo it was a mistake.

 

I still maintain that after Dach played a bunch of games for us, opinion even among initial skeptics about the trade shifted strongly to being pro-Dach. Some people on this very board were saying he had the potential to be better than Suzuki 'if he can stay healthy.' Only after returning from injury in 2024-25 and looking absolutely terrible did that narrative disintegrate. Nobody believes in Dach any more. Either his potential was a mirage or he is damaged goods. At most we hope he can establish himself as a decent bottom-6er.

 

So: no, it was NOT a self-evidently terribly move to go and get a 6'4 220 lb C with considerable upside. But still, it has obviously not worked out.

 

What mitigates my pain somewhat is that Nazar is not self-evidently 'the answer' at #2C either. He's too small. If you don't see us winning the Cup with Suzuki-Nazar as our 1-2 punch down the middle, then what the heck, maybe it was a gamble worth taking.

 

[Peter Puck]

8 hours ago, The Chicoutimi Cucumber said:

 

I think you make the assessment based on the assumption that the Habs would have picked the right guy. It is factually correct to say that the Habs could have had Nazar instead of Dach. They chose Dach. Nazar is better than Dach. Ergo it was a mistake.

 

I still maintain that after Dach played a bunch of games for us, opinion even among initial skeptics about the trade shifted strongly to being pro-Dach. Some people on this very board were saying he had the potential to be better than Suzuki 'if he can stay healthy.' Only after returning from injury in 2024-25 and looking absolutely terrible did that narrative disintegrate. Nobody believes in Dach any more. Either his potential was a mirage or he is damaged goods. At most we hope he can establish himself as a decent bottom-6er.

 

So: no, it was NOT a self-evidently terribly move to go and get a 6'4 220 lb C with considerable upside. But still, it has obviously not worked out.

 

What mitigates my pain somewhat is that Nazar is not self-evidently 'the answer' at #2C either. He's too small. If you don't see us winning the Cup with Suzuki-Nazar as our 1-2 punch down the middle, then what the heck, maybe it was a gamble worth taking.

 

I am not making that assumption.  I still think Dach may be better than Nazar and I don't assume we would have picked Nazar.  My point is that many people are assuming that (1) we would have picked Nazar and (2) Nazar will be better than Dach.   I am not convinced of either of these points.

 

  I also don't subscribe to the view that certain players are injury prone.  Just because Dach has had several injuries doesn't mean he will be injured again this year.  

[hab29RETIRED]

48 minutes ago, Peter Puck said:

I am not making that assumption.  I still think Dach may be better than Nazar and I don't assume we would have picked Nazar.  My point is that many people are assuming that (1) we would have picked Nazar and (2) Nazar will be better than Dach.   I am not convinced of either of these points.

 

  I also don't subscribe to the view that certain players are injury prone.  Just because Dach has had several injuries doesn't mean he will be injured again this year.  

I think I read the same type of posts since we made the trade for Dach, when I posted about his injury history in junior and the NHL.

Some players are injury prone.
 

Koivu’s whole career got derailed by injury. The difference was his character and work ethic still resulted him being a very good player - just not the superstar it looked he would be before he blow his knee. But he had a lot of fluke unrelated injuries, to go along with his illness.

[tomh009]

9 hours ago, Peter Puck said:

I am not making that assumption.  I still think Dach may be better than Nazar and I don't assume we would have picked Nazar.  My point is that many people are assuming that (1) we would have picked Nazar and (2) Nazar will be better than Dach.   I am not convinced of either of these points.

 

Right. In retrospect, yes, Nazar was the best option at that point. But in Scott Wheeler's 2022 redraft he's #6, so arguably six other teams missed picking him. How can we be so confident that the Habs would have correctly picked him? The NHL draft history is full of missed and mediocre draft picks, and no team is immune to that (although clearly some do better than others). 

[The Chicoutimi Cucumber]

13 hours ago, Peter Puck said:

I am not making that assumption.  I still think Dach may be better than Nazar and I don't assume we would have picked Nazar.  My point is that many people are assuming that (1) we would have picked Nazar and (2) Nazar will be better than Dach.   I am not convinced of either of these points.

 

  I also don't subscribe to the view that certain players are injury prone.  Just because Dach has had several injuries doesn't mean he will be injured again this year.  

 

The question is whether the Dach move was a mistake.

 

Yes, it was a mistake, because we could have had Nazar instead.

 

If we had not made the trade, then drafted someone other than Nazar, that would also have been a mistake, because we could have had Nazar instead.

 

The Dach trade does not cease to be a mistake just because maybe the Habs would have made a different mistake (not drafting Nazar) instead.

 

As for whether Dach can find his form, hey, we live in hope. I’ve just seen too many of these types of high-potential, low-result players come through the turnstile over the years to be too optimistic about him at this point.

[GHT120]

31 minutes ago, The Chicoutimi Cucumber said:

The question is whether the Dach move was a mistake.

 

Yes, it was a mistake, because we could have had Nazar instead.

 

But Nazar was ranked higher than 13th so HuGo could have had no expectation he would have been available ... I think the reality of what they thought they were giving up has to be factored in to evaluating a trade

[illWill]

Lost in this conversation is the fact that it was Romanov for a draft pick, we then traded that pick for Dach. I don't recall the timing or the details surrounding that, but perhaps there were some variables involved that resulted in us flipping the pick. 

 

That being said, the Habs were starving for a young center who could jump in and contribute right away. They got one with size, skill, and pedigree. I take that gamble 100% of the time all things considered at the time. 

 

Even if you don't like how it turned out so far, as stated above it can still certainly turn out in our favor. 

[GHT120]

2 hours ago, illWill said:

I don't recall the timing or the details surrounding that, but perhaps there were some variables involved that resulted in us flipping the pick. 

 

They were announced back-to-back after the third pick of the draft ... The pick acquired for Romanov was for the purpose of the Dach trade

[Peter Puck]

6 hours ago, The Chicoutimi Cucumber said:

 

The question is whether the Dach move was a mistake.

 

Yes, it was a mistake, because we could have had Nazar instead.

 

If we had not made the trade, then drafted someone other than Nazar, that would also have been a mistake, because we could have had Nazar instead.

 

The Dach trade does not cease to be a mistake just because maybe the Habs would have made a different mistake (not drafting Nazar) instead.

 

As for whether Dach can find his form, hey, we live in hope. I’ve just seen too many of these types of high-potential, low-result players come through the turnstile over the years to be too optimistic about him at this point.

So every draft choice is a mistake unless you get the best player left in the draft.

That's a very high bar to meet.

I guess we made another mistake this year since its very unlikely Pugachyov

has a better career than every player picked after him.

 

  In fact, its very likely that one of the players picked after Nazar surpasses him.  Does this mean Chicago made a mistake picking Nazar?

 

Also how do we know Nazar will be better than Dach?  We don't know that.

 

[illWill]

3 hours ago, GHT120 said:

 

They were announced back-to-back after the third pick of the draft ... The pick acquired for Romanov was for the purpose of the Dach trade

 

Yes, but when during the draft was the trade made? 

[illWill]

1 hour ago, Peter Puck said:

So every draft choice is a mistake unless you get the best player left in the draft.

That's a very high bar to meet.

I guess we made another mistake this year since its very unlikely Pugachyov

has a better career than every player picked after him.

 

  In fact, its very likely that one of the players picked after Nazar surpasses him.  Does this mean Chicago made a mistake picking Nazar?

 

Also how do we know Nazar will be better than Dach?  We don't know that.

 

 

I agree that his logic on this is flawed. 

 

Are we going to rehash the Dobson trade as well while we are at it? We sent 2(!) middle round draft picks in this case plus Heineman. Where are the cries that we could have had both Eklund and Aitcheson? 

 

Dach is a good player with a ton of upside. He is what we needed at the time, but he has had unfortunate injuries since then. It's not the end of the world, Nazar is mid anyway, get over it. 

 

 

[illWill]

6 minutes ago, illWill said:

 

I agree that his logic on this is flawed. 

 

Are we going to rehash the Dobson trade as well while we are at it? We sent 2(!) middle round draft picks in this case plus Heineman. Where are the cries that we could have had both Eklund and Aitcheson? 

 

Dach is a good player with a ton of upside. He is what we needed at the time, but he has had unfortunate injuries since then. It's not the end of the world, Nazar is mid anyway, get over it. 

 

 

 

Oh and can't help but notice Nazar's injury history so far in his career as well, maybe we can pick him up in a year or two with a draft pick. 

[GHT120]

39 minutes ago, illWill said:

 

Yes, but when during the draft was the trade made? 

 

2 seconds before Bettman's announcement ... 2 days before and kept quiet ... who knows ... curious why it matters

[illWill]

2 minutes ago, GHT120 said:

 

2 seconds before Bettman's announcement ... 2 days before and kept quiet ... who knows ... curious why it matters

 

Because drafts are fluid and things change during that time? 

[GHT120]

48 minutes ago, illWill said:

Because drafts are fluid and things change during that time? 

 

Even if it was "2 seconds before" it was announced 10 picks before the pick that was traded (twice) so not much had happened that could impact it

[GHT120]

 

OBVIOUSLY the perfect tandem ... 😉

[Prime Minister Koivu]

Not really bothered much either way but I liked the older style